Los Osos Animosity

Aaron, why are you calling out only TW as NOT stepping up to attempt to quell the animosity? What about naming PZLDF? CCLO, CASE, the Los Osos Sustainability Group, Surfrider, etc? Just curious.

What about naming PZLDF? CCLO, CASE, the Los Osos Sustainability Group, Surfrider, etc?Good question.I did mention community leaders in my article after I mentioned Taxpayers Watch. PZLDF, CCLO, CASE, LOSG and Surfrider are all part of that mix. Also, you forgot the LOCSD.Can you name anyone, from those organizations, who have posted anonymously with the same hostility as those who have shown fierce opposition toward the post-recall board and the “small, vocal minority”?I mentioned Taxpayers Watch first for a reason. I have e-mailed and contacted many of the commentators who have shown animosity toward the “obstructionists,” toward the “no-sewer” people etc. Out of 12 of the known bloggers who have expressed violent, hateful tirades, 9 of them were sympathizers and supporters of Taxpayers Watch (75%) and the other three signed the dissolution petition. According to Hensley, those people are also members of Taxpayers Watch.If I use the same logic and methodology presented in the County’s community survey, I can say that the majority of Taxpayers Watch are an angry bunch. In reality, I can see that many of these anonymous bloggers and commentators are knowledgeable of the issues, but they would rather resort to insults to get their points across.The last time I alleged that Taxpayers Watch was one of the groups causing a surge of hatred, I only based my assertion on the comments that implied TW involvement. Now, I have a clearer understanding.

Quack & FibHeh, Heh, HehLynette, why are you telling us abour Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name"???Quack & FIB???

Aaron, mentioning one group by name and not mentioning the others by name seems a little unfair, especially since TW has been so quiet of late and the leader of PZLDF was quite vile in her castigation of the County at the Planning Commission meeting just last Thursday. Or does brotherly kindness nor extend to the County, the County not being a single person (although specific County people certainly have been lashed at)? This PZLDF person and others (a spokesperson for The Sustainability Group has spoken VERY harshly to the Supes), does not post anonymously that I am aware of. They simply spoke at that meeting, at BOS meetings and any meeting that provides a venue for this topic. So it is bad to speak meanly anonymously against individuals (past LOCSD elected officials and employees), but OK to speak harshly in public to the faces of current elected officials or government employees? I’m curious – you know who I am and I have put my e-mail out on the blogs, but how do you know who other commenters are and how are you able to e-mail them? I don’t know who some of them are and I would have no idea as to how to e-mail them. Are you going back in time to name these 12 bloggers, as there are so few of us who blog here any longer? I’m trying to think up 12 names who post here – I can’t.How about OsosChange, GetRealOsos – are they from organizations? Is foul-mouthed Howie too ancient to bring up? Was he from an organization? I don’t know. How do you know they aren’t from organizations, too? Or you DO know who they are and they aren’t from organizations so they don’t count?Was your article intended for a larger audience than this blog? How many people read these blogs? 12?How many people reach a wider audience by public speaking on channels 20 and 21? I think you are making quite a reach to call out TW and not mention Linde, Al, Gail, Piper, Julie, Martha, Margetson, Swanson etc. as people who use insults to get their points across. Or do you think their influence is minor compared to the “mighty,” but silent, TW?

Lynette,You’re leaving your own personal “group” off of your “list”.The Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name”- MDIFHLN Group.

VIRGINIA WOOLFE: If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people.NOAM CHOMSKY: It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.THOMAS JEFFERSON: He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual.ADRIENNE RICH: Lying is done with words and also with silence.Lynette: Give it up, admit your lie and then let it go, “so that ‘you’ can be forgiven”.

I think it’s clear that Aaron, well meaning as he is, sides with the recall and the move the sewer people. So do I. I have nothing to do with Gail or CCW or CCLO or CASE or whatever the flavor of the moment is. I find it amusing that Sewertoons gets so defensive about TW. What’s in it for her?

BTW, as a dues paying member of Surfrider, I would like to know what we have done to perpetuate animosity? Also, what has the Sustainability Group done that is so awful? I have worked with Keith W. and Karen V. and some of the others and have found them to be very professional. Karen, in fact, is a model of professional behavior.

Well, if Sharon Fredericks is still a spokesperson for TW you are in for some very nasty scolding!

Hello All”Mike” is a pathological liar. He portrays himself as a little ole lady from LO but he is anything but. Way creepy.

Lynette,Some members of Taxpayers Watch have not been quiet when it comes to online communication.You started to talk about other members like GetReal and OsosChange. In terms of quantity and consistency, the frequency of their hostile opinions pale in comparison to the spiteful comments made by the post-recall board and “move the sewer” proponents. I don’t know who they are nor do I want to know. It’s not my business to guess people’s identities online. That’s a waste of time.When I look at all the sites that host anonymous Los Osos commentary, it’s apparent that only those people stay on Blogger. When you include all the other mediums and media outlets, the anger toward the “move the sewer” people is unarguably prominent.Lynette, there are many people that look at both Calhoun’s Cannon and my blog. Not everyone who reads the blog posts comments, but even if it was only 12 people, does that decrease the value of my opinion?Over the past 4 months, I’ve e-mailed and messaged members on Blogger, SanLuisObispo.com and Cal Coast News just to test my thesis. As it turns out, the anger primarily comes from supporters and sympathizers of Taxpayers Watch, however, Richard LeGros corrected me when I met with him: NOT everyone in Taxpayers Watch are as hateful as the people who post anonymously online.Maria Kelly ran a campaign to stamp out the innuendo. So far, we haven’t seen much craziness (the CSD meetings) ever since she and Ochylski became members of the LOCSD, but in my opinion, because she’s a community leader, it’s her duty to put the community back on track and create a more peaceful environment.As The Tribune put it, the sewer plan isn’t going to please everyone, but you know what? Maybe if we start now to mend fences and make our beliefs and our truths — that we find to be self-evident — transparent, then before you know it, you’re going to have a wastewater treatment project.

The interesting thing about some of the anonymous folks who are really, really nasty is that their rage isn't about the sewer — that's just the excuse for their anger. If the problem was The Sewer, they'd be discussing issues and facts and events and processes & etc. But they're really only interested in irrelevent personal attacks that has nothing to do with a sewer. So the psychology of "projection" comes in and the reader has to look at the anonymous rager and ask, "Ooooh, interesting, I wonder what's REALLY eating at him?" And it's never about The Sewer. It's always, at heart, about something else, as you noted in your comments.

It looks like the Planning Commission is asking most of the same questions as the “sewer obstructionists” have been asking time after time and getting no response. Does that make the Planning Commission “sewer obstructionists”?I think the biggest difference is that the “sewer obstructionists” want transparency while TW wants a project that is not in the public interest. Therefore the TW objectives must remain hidden or obscured, which explains their comments that distract us from discussion of the issues.I truly appreciate all the people that have put in an enormous amount of their time to study the issues, attend the meetings, and voice their concerns. This is the beauty of our democracy. I especially appreciate those citizens from outside of Los Osos who have taken an interest in our controversy and provided an objective view of the problems and solutions.

I absolutely love it when people define the “public interest” as what they agree with and define “not in the public interest” as what they disagree with. Sort of like the letter to the editor of the Trib this morning by Allen Litten who defined paying more than one’s share, one’s share or less than one’s share of taxes in a way which presumes there would be no disagreement about the exact nature of progressiveness (or regressiveness) of various taxes.How about this … how about we define “fair share of taxes” as matching the average tax rate under Nixon, Reagan and Clinton? Anyone who disagrees with me is, of course, completely opposed to all social good and is in favor of either Communism or Fascism. Similarly, in Los Osos, all who disagree with me about the exact plant location, technology and cost are, by definition, opposed to the public interest.Sheesh!

SharkThen let the public decide in an honest tranparent process what is in their interest. I am tired of it insead being determined in backroom deals, with individuals determining the destiny for the public on issues that the should be vetted in a public forum. TW, Paavo, and Pandora have proven that they do not mind lying to the public. They have earned the distrust of those that have lived here long enough. They continue to control the information released to the public through controling the Trivial, collecting the Rock from driveways, and spewing filth and lies on the internet. It is surprising that any of those with differing opinions can endure the the personal slander. TW has worked hard to control this process with MWH, Carollo, and Paavo again by their side.

And as before, Paavo is the puppet with MWH controlling the strings, and TW sends out the pawns who infiltrate the community spreading lies and dissention

And the BOS just tries to avoid soiling their fancy suits as they wade through the putrid mess and the liability left to them by their predecessors

To our anonymous friend of 1:12pm …I fully agree.The problem might be that because the process is complicated and because there isn’t a short list of possible outcomes.For a while I’ve liked Ann’s idea of having a Chinese menu for our sewer … but the problem is that the price of various items isn’t fully known. For example, the menu should say something like “if you want the sewer out of town it will cost you an extra $10 +/- $30 per month”.While you and I may feel comfortable with statement like this it tends to be a bit overwhelming when there are many options and each has an uncertain outcome and even assessing the degree of uncertainty is difficult.

SharkSo how did we end up with a combination of the most expensive options; our water sprayed on prime ag land far away from the basin, the largest and most expensive collection system (but still unsealed), no conservation included in the plan (because we can add and pay for that at a later date), the most energy intensive treatment……. How is this in the best interest of the people? It does not even follow the county’s own vision. Are you paying attention or just getting mesmorized but Paavo’s bull?

Um … I thought the answer was obvious … because there are limited options and when we voted for the Recall we essentially told the County that we didn’t want TriW leaving even fewer options.Seriously … rather than sniping, how about you tell us what you think would be best? Even better than that, tell us what you think is best and demonstrate it is both possible and better than both TriW and the County plan.

Since everyone who has presented alternatives has been branded a “sewer obstructionists” by Paavo’s Pawns, I am hoping the Planning Commission will be able to fairly evaluate the options. They seem to be very interested in educating themselves about all options and have a track record for standing up the real “environmentally preferred” projects. They have access to the information has been submitted and dismissed by Paavo. Let’s see what the PC has to say. It looks like they are putting everything on the table. We can only hope that the corruption that permeates county goverment is not allowed to railroad the course they are currently on.

A fiery horse with the speed of light, a cloud of dust, and a hearty “Hi-yo, Silver!”, The LOAN** (AR) Ranger!Sorry Folks,I don’t intend to make light of a very serious and potentially devastating issue, but when Steve asks for something that is “best and demonstrate it is both possible and better than both TriW and the County plan.”, after the County spent $7 Million Dollars, it is laughable, if it wasn’t so sad…The fact that the question is “raised” at all shows the County didn’t perform its fiduciary duty.**Financial Considerations The cost of the $2.0 million Project budget is funded by the County’s General Fund-i.e. Countywide taxpayers. The Project’s key elements and strategies adopted by your board on June 19th were recommended by staff specifically in support of developing a local agency solution to the Los Osos wastewater dilemma (as opposed to a state implemented solution) while also balancing the fiscal commitment of countywide resources. AB 2701 provides your Board with the authority to withdraw from Project development at any time prior to full due diligence review and your consideration of a resolution, at that time, to either implement, or not implement, a Project. Completion of due diligence is anticipated in Spring/Summer of 2008 – after the Prop. 218 vote and community advisory vote Results The formation of this advisory committee will help facilitate a livable community, and a well governed community.

I sure “hope” the budget for the actual project doesn’t balloon up like Deputy Public Works Director December 2006 “budget” did.

Aaron, when you say that some members of TW have not been quiet online, what time frame are you looking at here? Since Fall 2005 or the past several months?Some members of PZLDF and the Sustainability Group have been outright hostile and rather nasty to the County and its process – shouldn’t they curb their supporters’ tongues?I barely ever look at that CalCoast news site so have no comment on what has gone before the April “Los Osos sewer project” article. Which person represents TW on there? Does a blogger know as GMcPherson get a pass for dissing the County? Does her innuendo help resolve the town angst or simply question the integrity of the County which holds the only tools toward getting us a sewer? Does casting suspicion help the situation?How about the anons on your blog – “the corruption that permeates county goverment,” and “Paavo is the puppet” – how does this make for clear discussion?I don’t think that your opinion is valueless at all. In fact, I think you have brought a lot of common sense and caring to the discussion, and I appreciate it.

PS – I really like the Donald Duck cartoon.

Lynette,Since 2005.Isn’t it a little silly that you’re asking me to personally take into account every single individual that disagrees with you?In terms of the anonymous folks on here, I think that talking about corruption permeating county government and Paavo being a puppet is less harsh than, say, making snide comments about people’s physical attributes while dishing out socially divisive labels?Also, by being a part of the government (local, state and federal), it’s expected that you’d get some harsh scrutiny and I’ve hurled a few insults or two (or three… hundred) at the Bush administration, but hey, that’s expected.Playing the devil’s advocate for a moment: you can say, “Now you’re creating a ‘pick and choose’ argument.” The reality is that there has been a lot of animosity directed at people outside of the county government. Do people deserve that animosity? Not really. What good does it really do? We’re such a tight-knit community, we can’t help but to wonder why some people — more than others — give us dirty looks at the supermarket and wonder about the depth of people’s hatred.Sure, there are quite a few people who really screwed this town over in one way or another, but when people bring up their names, I don’t feel the need to utter a series of obscenities. They know they screwed up. They don’t need me to tell them that.My concern is that the people who are being targeted by insults are going to turn the anonymous bloggers as a scapegoat to publicly discredit the organizations that the anonymous belong to and/or invoke delay tactics. They might blame the need for delay on the divisive comments made by only a few individuals: a small cross-section of the organizations the anonymous belong to.

Lynette,Free speech is not free. Just ask Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name”.If you can’t or won’t ask him, would you please explain why?If you have abused your right to free speech by lying please tell us why, won’t you?Are you a puppet?

No offense intended, Mark, but if you want to have some moral authority when trying to call ‘Toons out on some supposed dishonesty it would be good to clear up your own issues first.Kids on the playground who pick on others shouldn’t complain so loudly when they get picked on themselves. It makes the playground attendants giggle.

Aaron, I think I’ve been doing a bad job of trying to get my point across. My point started with your statement, “I have not seen any members of Taxpayers Watch step forward in an attempt to curb the vitriolic comments made by supporters.”My response was – why just call out TW and not the other groups. The other groups have been spewing nasty commentary too. Why didn’t you name them?I now know you meant going back to 2005 as to vitriolic comments. I guess it is besides the point to mention that Pandora, Richard, Gordon and Stan were slammed in vile ways MANY times on these blogs. As to which side was worse? I don’t know – I didn’t chart these things and I think we can simply say neither side was right. To say one side or the other was worse can’t be accurately done by either of us – it is just a matter of perception. I could copy and paste some things said about me in the not too recent past that were pretty nasty. But I won’t. I don’t know if Cal Coast news is read by the number of people who read here and on Ann’s blog. Granted the comments over there are pretty harsh.Personal attacks are one thing, not good, but FAR less important than the total disrespect of the County and the work they have done. Stirring up dissent on the only hope that we have for getting a WWTF is just helping no one. Fanning suspicion and distrust is not productive toward healing the community, (but does help toward stalling the process) — is this helpful?How ever many people read all the blogs, the numbers are much smaller that the numbers who watch BOS, LOCSD and Planning Commission meetings on their TV’s and computers. And that is where my concern lies. My concern is with right now, not two, three or four years ago. And not the blogs.My first point is Planning Commissions Chair Sarah Christie’s remark, “I’m so glad happy that you didn’t live up to your reputation.” Do you think that she was picking sides with that comment? That all the vile behavior that characterizes Los Osos is just from TW? Doesn’t Budd Sanford’s threats or Al’s disrespectful behavior count?Our reputation – Isn’t it sad that Al was kicked out of the Planning Commission meeting? Isn’t it sad that Gail thinks the only shovel ready project is the “BS” that passes for work and that the County process is rigged – that it is a mess and that public corruption has entered the process – etc. Two “leaders” of current groups said this – how is this helping? Yet Al’s removal and these comments make for a good day for a meeting concerning Los Osos.So what was it that TW said at the last two important meetings that was incendiary? Are you dredging up the past to make your point to inflame dislike for TW on are you referring to some recent comments on an obscure blog by – who – someone who SAID they supported TW? – I don’t recall seeing that in the postings? I don’t know who these people are and that they actually signed the dissolution petition which is your qualifier as to belonging to TW. So how does TW have responsibility over them? They are just opinions by angry posters and no reflection on TW.

I’ll do my best to answer point by point then.My response was – why just call out TW and not the other groups. The other groups have been spewing nasty commentary too. Why didn’t you name them?I don’t know if some of the harsh critics, online, are members of other organizations. I don’t know anyone from CCLO, PZLDF, SLO Surfrider, LOSP who has contributed anonymously to the hostility online.It seems you’re basing your statements on criticism made offline in the real world, but clearly, that is not what I was talking about in my original article.I guess it is besides the point to mention that Pandora, Richard, Gordon and Stan were slammed in vile ways MANY times on these blogs. As to which side was worse? I don’t know – I didn’t chart these things and I think we can simply say neither side was right.There’s no doubt, in my mind, that harsh things were mentioned about Pandora, Richard, Gordon and Stan, but citing the harsh criticism from that point in time is crying over spilled milk. You really don’t see a lot of the hostility going on except on Ron Crawford’s blog.Again, I’m talking about the harsh criticism being consistent and continuous. There was a lot of defamation going back and forth, but for some people, they don’t stop. When those people emerge and take part in the discussion, they taint what could be progressive discourse.Lynette, I’m going to review some numbers with you. I monitor statistics on my site daily. Yesterday until 11:59 PM, 323 people read this blog. That’s almost three times as many people who attend the BOS, LOCAC and LOCSD meetings combined. People do read these blogs and people are reading your comments, my comments and everyone else’s comments.I observed Sarah Christie’s comments and yes, that was a bit uncalled for, joking or not.But here we go again, dissecting every real-life example of hostility, but know what? My comments apply to everyone, not just TW. I mentioned TW because those, who have claimed to be associated with TW, have had their many online opinions front and center since Fall 2005.Outside of the Net, the majority of TW has been quiet. I’ve had no problems with that, none. It’s online, here on the information super-highway. That’s what I’m talking about and that’s what I’ve been talking about the past couple of months.Sorry if you didn’t get the memo.

Are those 323 unique hits or just hits. Big difference.

212 were unique hits, 111 returning visitors.

Steve,Your inability to cut and paste my words when asked to back up your false assertions is on the record just like Lynette’s Quack and Fib regarding Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name” lie.Lynette lied when she assumed I would never receive a copy of her lie and you are openly on the record, so relax.BTW: Phoenix is not in “over draft”…

Mark,We all know that the Pheonix metro area was overusing groundwater for decades and we all know that the situation won’t be corrected even by the target year of 2025. Perhaps you didn’t notice during the four or six days you didn’t post anything here or on Ann’s blog, but I posted some definitive links showing you were and are wrong … and you’ve still offered us zero reason to justify your claims.I don’t want to drag this out again because quite clearly you’re both stubborn and uninterested in learning.Let me know when you want to deal with the evidence I’ve presented. Until then you would probably want to avoid criticizing others.

Steve,I love it when you must “explain yourself” when you are wrong.Once again, for the record:Phoenix is not in over draft…A Lie is always a lie…

Mark,I love it when you can’t “explain yourself” when you are wrong.Once again, for the record:the State of Arizona Department of Water Resources says that Phoenix is in overdraft …It is always interesting when two people have a discussion and one is willing to provide evidence for his beliefs and the other refuses. It sort of makes you know who is right … even if one doesn’t know anything about the situation.Mark, do you really want to make the impression you’re making?

Aaron, I remembered some discussion in my last dreamweaver class about unique hits. I couldn’t recall the exact details, but it had to do with one computer looking like many. So I turned to Wikipedia and came up with this:”Some log file analysis software products calculate a proxy for Unique Visitors by counting the number of visitors from unique IP addresses. This statistic is a poor measure as it is distorted by two main factors:Many consumers access the internet from networks that allow them to share a single IP address, which results in the IP address proxy undercounting Unique Visitors. Tracking the visitor’s UserAgent (browser identification information) in addition to the IP address can help mitigate this, but many of the users that share a single IP address may also use the same browser.There are also Internet Service Providers (ISP), such as AOL and cable modem providers, that use Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) which can provide their customers with a different IP addresses for each request they make from a site, thereby making one visitor look like many, thereby causing the IP address proxy to overcount Unique Users. However, most only do this after a timeout period when they run out of available IP addresses.”Check out the full reference here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_visitorWhile I do believe there are many lurkers on here who never post, I’m not sure the numbers really reflect what’s going on. Blog junkies like myself will check in between 10 and 20 times a day and I have DHCP going with Charter. My old service provider in LA changed IP addresses every hour.

Steve,When you “page back” you’ll see all the proof I provided regarding water use in Phoenix.Let’s try this: Think of Phoenix as a PZ like you have there in LO/BP.All of the PZ is located in LO/BP but not all of LO/BP is located in the PZ.I suggest(ed) that you read more carefully the links I provide the first and second time around.I also suggest(ed) that you make physical contact with Phoenix and not rely upon the State’s “Phoenix Active Management Area”, for information regarding Phoenix, because it “isn’t” Phoenix.Keep it up Steve, you are making my point brilliantly, water is a special world, which is why there is so much confusion and probably why you are confused as the record shows.To answer your question, that is the impression I want to make. Thank you for playing.I love LO!

Honestly? Lynette…Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name”…Honestly?

Mark,I can’t tell whether you didn’t read my comments in Ann’s blog, whether you read but didn’t understand those comments or whether you read and understood them but are choosing to disagree with your state scientists.Please don’t bother commenting again unless you are interested in commenting on what I wrote (which I will copy, in part, for you here so that you don’t have to go-a-huntin’ and you won’t be able to say that you didn’t see the comments):There are exactly two main aquifers in the Phoenix AMA (the thickest portion of the Eastern one pretty much runs from NE Phoenix to Mesa and the thickest portions of the Western one are in the central Phoenix and Glendale area) and the city of Phoenix uses water from both … in fact, it is the only city in the AMA which sits on top of both. Most of the water used by the region is from the Colorado, Gila or Salt rivers. Treated wastewater and water from the CAP (Colorado River) is being used to recharge the aquifers because they’ve been overused for so long. The state still says that they likely won’t be in a state of health even by 2025 even with recharging.Presumably, because the Arizona DWR says that the AMA is in overdraft (and Mark agrees), and Mark says Phoenix isn’t (and DWR disagrees) … Mark could identify which of the two aquifers is in overdraft and which isn’t (note: the Arizona DWR AMA status report pretty much shows that both aquifers are similar with regard to the water table).So then … let’s recap. If Phoenix isn’t in overdraft but it sits in a region which is, one of the two aquifers Phoenix sits on and uses must be in overdraft and the other one not. However, the DWR report shows both aquifers are the same.[The complete comments in context can be found at http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/2009/04/calhouns-canons-for-april-17-09.html ... look towards the bottom ...]

Lynette,Web design and programming has been my profession for quite some time (since I was 12) so I know a quite a bit about unique visitors, returning visitors and page reloads. My statistics are based on browser cookies, which most people have enabled by default.People are reading. Do my stats reflect that a significant amount of people are looking at the blog? Of course not, but since Los Osos isn’t talked about as much on the sites outside of the realm of Blogger, it’s natural to have heavy concentration of readers who are reading these blogs. I think there needs to be a standard of etiquette that should be established by those with conflicting viewpoints. You can say that my words were, as Richard LeGros put it, “already said before,” but I keep sayin’ it because people are not listening, our leaders are not listening.The BOS isn’t listening. By limiting public comment regarding Los Osos to 10 minutes, that gives the anonymous a reason to discriminate against their opposition. The BOS is invoking not only limitations on our public testimony rights, but it also gives people the license to discriminate against who you often refer to as the “angry, vocal minority.”

I completely agree that there needs to be a standard of etiquette that should be established by those with conflicting viewpoints. But establishing that must be an individual thing. Can you imagine the uproar if Bruce Gibson had said people must be civil to one another?There should also be consideration of other people’s time. If the repetitiveness of comments was anywhere on the “awareness radar” of certain speakers perhaps the 10-minute rule would not have been invoked. Some people just don’t like certain outcomes or conclusions or decisions and somehow think that by repeating themselves, sometimes loudly on their viewpoint, those outcomes will be different. The reasons for denial have been told – but not heard. That is magical thinking. Or to be more blunt – irrational thinking.I do see what you mean about how the time limit could give license to discrimination – in theory — but is this really true in practice? The rancor has been going on since the blogs began and in public since 2001 (I hear) with little abatement. Public censure is hard to regulate in democratic societies! It is hard to NOT call a spade a spade (I refer to “spade” in the Nicolas Udall’s translation of Erasmus sense). These people are a downer and actually quite boring. Consider the gentle, easy to listen to, and rational delivery of a Lawson Schaller vs. Gail – on the same topic! Even when I disagree with him, I LIKE to listen to him speak.Would these angry people consider therapy? Would they consider being gracious and bowing out as they are not going to get their way? I guess I don’t believe in miracles. Basically, these people who commandeer the time we do have — have shot themselves in the foot and have taken the rest of us down with them.

LynetteGet a clue. The County allowed 1150 homes in a prohibition zone. The county allowed homes in the PZ to be sold disclosing only a building moratorium (not a discharge violation), the county sat by watching quietly as the solutions group lie to the public and never disclosed that the promoted project was dead in the water, and the county then assigned a project leader who had broken laws in collusion with MWH.What do you think they are discussing each week with the closed session item “Facts and circumstances not known to potential plaintiff which indicate significant exposure to litigation.”Paavo is trying to rush this project through before the pending cases get into a courtroom, and the BOS is afraid to stop him.

Lynette wrote: "I completely agree that there needs to be a standard of etiquette that should be established…" & "Another local resident claims that a Mr. Dean (sorry, lost his last name) represents your company."SLHS, Would that standard include lying?

Sorry Steve: Phoenix is not in over draft.

Mark,I know that it makes you feel better to repeat the same statement over and over but that doesn’t make it true or even reasonable.The only reason that I’ve bothered replying to you is for the good of others so that they would not be misled by you. Presumably they could see that you’re making bold claims which disagree with common sense, science, government reports and that you refuse to justify your statements.A reasonable person would explain their statements when asked and you haven’t done so.

So sorry Steve,Phoenix is not in over draft.

Can you imagine the uproar if Bruce Gibson had said people must be civil to one another?There would be an uproar? I guess if Gibson were to form a similar statement in his own words, in his brutish fashion, that would probably get a few upset.As far as discrimination goes, you can clearly see how people reacted to the board’s decision to limit public comment on Los Osos here.These angry people online will likely always be angry no matter what. Urging them to do therapy isn’t going to change anything. It’s my belief that many of these bloggers know each other so it wouldn’t hurt to just pat them on the back and tell them to take it easy.

Wow, the kettle calling the pot a kitchen appliance of color.Aaron, Lynnete correctly noted that since they are annon-eek-a-mouse, you don’t actually know, their affiliations, their motivations, their degree of intelectual dishonesty, do you? Someone with a Machiavellian bent (Water Mark, the topic is “hostility under the cover of anonimity”, not your family crest) could be posting as a T-W or any ther group supporter , just to “Stir the pot”You have brought up some interesting topics, not the least of which is “Who is reading these blogs? and how many are they? Let me add;”what influence do these blog posts and comments have on the quality of information in the greater un-virtual reality Los Osos world”.I agree with Ann (C-Dawg) In that there is more going on in the lizard brain then is clearly expressed in the anonemouse public commentary. But I think that Like alcohol, anonimity reduces inhibitions. The psycology of Web anonimity is probably a major source for doctoral thesi. Back to Sewerwurke, years ago a person stated in CSD mtg pre-recall, “We can disagree, but why does the other side have to be so NASTY?” (my impression then, was that both sides were equally nasty) it occured to me at the time that appearing to take the higher road can also be just a covert way of COLLECTIVE CHARACTER ASSASINATION

Alon,See my first post in the comments.I mentioned Taxpayers Watch first for a reason. I have e-mailed and contacted many of the commentators who have shown animosity toward the “obstructionists,” toward the “no-sewer” people etc. Out of 12 of the known bloggers who have expressed violent, hateful tirades, 9 of them were sympathizers and supporters of Taxpayers Watch (75%) and the other three signed the dissolution petition. According to Hensley, those people are also members of Taxpayers Watch.

To anonymous, your postings on this blog indicate that you are involved in the sewer follies, that you know most of the issues, that you are of the move the sewer group. More power to ya. I don’t know who you are but I know who you are not. you probably have spoken publicly.Posting under Anonymous said… is problematic in that there could be multiple people posting on a specific Blog post. It is simply too confusing, since there is no way to be sure that anon at 11:00 am is the same person anon at 5:00 pm. It creates a problem of continuity and context.I recomend that you post under an Anonymous Identity(pseudonim, assumed identity,Pen-name).People have posted under other people’s identities and there was a particularly nasty example a few months ago (at Calhoun’s). As soon as I stopped laughing I posted to ann suggesting she delete those entries and she did though she did not need the prompting. In the past one of the “less popular” leaders had the habit of posting anon or under a anon name as a “member of public who just happened to pass through and thought that the comments of so and so were reasonable”. Lying frequently does not compete with lying well.I think you are a genuine anon so I will respond to another of your comments- Surfriders. I have a high personal reguard for Noah Smeckler and Jeff Pineak. Surfrider did however, assoaciate with an Al Barrow event.Guilt by assoaciation, and also guilt by dissassociation are risks that organizations have to consider if they wish to be credible. as for “Professional”, the individuals you mention have for the most part, not been discourtious. however, as members of public “professional” may not be the best descriptor, more suitable to Camron, or Dana Ripley who are in the Sewer Engineer category. And that is the kicker- “Professional” may mean something else to people who have operated within a professional Career. I have no suggestions, and your message is understandable as is. I bring this up to illistrate that the history and context of an annon comment poster is hidden.Anyway, I personally would like to see more comments by you, but please invest your time in a monniker.

Hi real time Aaron,While I do critisize, in your case it is out of respect for the even finer product that you may produce in the future.This webspace is a microcosem of Los Osos which in turn is a microcosm of America.The number of surveys returned to the county is adequate for statistical interpretation. I don’t make the rules. Question bias? you bet.In fact, I, on several occations, private and public, suggested (respectfuly) to the county that they avoid the appearence of impropriety and unintentional bias and suggested that the county vet the survey via the TAC.Your Readership, 222 hits, or otherwise, cannot be seen as representative of a “representative” group. Sample size mattersVenting on the web even on the newspaper is not equivalent to communicating with the goverment as an individual, or as a “representative” of a specific group, or on “behalf” of “the public”.

Paavo’s plan has been MWH gravity out of town since day one. The TAC was selected by Public Works to get Paavo’s desired outcome. The survey was designed to get Paavo’s desired outcome. Public information released by the county is designed to get Paavo’s desired outcome. The information now coming to the forefront also conflict with Paavo’s desired outcome. All groups asking for an affordable and/or sustainable project conflict with Paavo’s desired outcome.The county response is to quash public comment and to hurry up the project. Get those pipes in the ground ASAP. There is no chance for a sustainable project while Paavo is in charge. And then he can be in charge of the next big project in LO, importing water. I wonder how much that is going to cost us?

Don’t forget the storm sewer that Mark H has been working on for soe time now. It may come before a drinking water pipe project.